The chasm between rhetoric and reality is amazingly wide in this brief interview. I suppose she feels so good about herself because she has been blessed by Pope Al Gore.

Quote:

5 What changes have you made in your own life?

I don't believe everyone has to do everything. I don't do everything. It's about everyone doing something. I have changed as many lightbulbs as I could to (higher efficiency) bulbs. I started a new idling rule at the school carpool lane (cars dropping and picking up kids can't idle their engines more than 30 seconds). I bring a garment bag to the dry cleaners (instead of having the dry cleaners wrap her clothes in petroleum-based plastic). I drive a hybrid.

Wow.. those changes are really... inconsequential. Especially when she uses rhetoric such as this...

Quote:

Here's a perfect analogy: if you had a choice between being in a 5 mile-per-hour car accident or a 50 mile-per-hour car accident, what would you choose? I would choose everything we have to do avoid the larger collision ahead.

So if we continue living in our modern manner, but change a few light bulbs and drive a different car, suddenly global warming because 10x's less. I've not read anything of that sort. Especially when her own answer to the previous question indicates the exact opposite.

Quote:

There's something in my heart that makes me believe if I could get 10 minutes with these guys, I could change their mind. I would love to have dinner with Inhofe. We're at the point where we have to do something big to stop global warming. I would want him to watch the movie. I would pop the popcorn. I would pick up the check (for dinner).

We have to do something BIG to change global warming like... change your light bulbs and turn off your car when you drop off your kids. Finally use a garment bag when you get your dry cleaning done, because heaven forbid, you wouldn't want to just consider garments that don't need dry cleaning.

Meanwhile, China claims the lead in the global warming race by making real changes like forced abortions on their women.

The chasm between rhetoric and reality is amazingly wide in this brief interview. I suppose she feels so good about herself because she has been blessed by Pope Al Gore.

Wow.. those changes are really... inconsequential. Especially when she uses rhetoric such as this...

So if we continue living in our modern manner, but change a few light bulbs and drive a different car, suddenly global warming because 10x's less. I've not read anything of that sort. Especially when her own answer to the previous question indicates the exact opposite.

We have to do something BIG to change global warming like... change your light bulbs and turn off your car when you drop off your kids. Finally use a garment bag when you get your dry cleaning done, because heaven forbid, you wouldn't want to just consider garments that don't need dry cleaning.

Meanwhile, China claims the lead in the global warming race by making real changes like forced abortions on their women.

I think I'm going to projectile vomit.

Nick

well numbnuts if every incandescent lightbulb was changed for an energy eficient one, that would IIRC in a single stroke flatline the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere.

You see, Nick, the issue is symbolism, not substance. It's enough if you just do one thing that settles your own conscience, regardless of what it really does in the end. Like buying these mass-fraud carbon credits. What an amazing scam! It's soooo good that I bet Bush/Cheney/Rummy are in on the action in some way. A lot of this BS is about either A) making yourself feel like you have "done something," however inconsequential, or B) making people around you think you are a good person who cares, however inconsequential.

It's enviro-peity, and it's everywhere.

Should we recycle? Sure, it makes environmental and money sense. Change to CF lightbulbs if we like them? Great. Start a compost pile for food and yard waste? Sure, if you are into that. Ask auto makers to make cars that get the mileage that we would buy? The market takes care of that... It always comes back to the government forcing people to "do the right thing." It is the hallmark of modern central planning in the statist mold.

This all comes back to control. The far right wants to control our morals. The far left wants to run everything else, principally our wallets.

I want a new refinery or two and about 25 new nuclear power plants.
That would make life better for everyone.

If all US cars (not including light trucks) were Priuses today, the nation would save 15 percent more oil than it received from the Persian Gulf in 2002, writes energy-efficiency guru Amory Lovins in his recent book "Winning the Oil Endgame."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777

Of course, that's only true if we build 100 more nuclear reactors to power the hybrids.
Can we put the first one in your backyard?

Hybrids like the Prius don't draw any electricity from the grid. I'm not against nukes though, if they're safe.

Laurie Lennard David (born 22 March 1958) is a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council and board member of California's Children Nature Institute. She is a contributing blogger to the The Huffington Post, and a political activist. She is also the wife of Larry David (co-creator of Seinfeld and creator of Curb Your Enthusiasm).

Laurie David has been subject to persistent criticism for being less than consistent in her environmental positioning. For example, she was fined by a local regulatory body on Martha's Vinyard for violating local environmental ordinances in the construction of her large home.[5] Further, The Atlantic Monthly has termed David "a Gulfstream liberal". The magazine explains that, " Laurie David, who dedicates herself to fighting for improved fuel-economy standards and reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable: a private plane."[6] By way of comparison, David's choice to use a Gulfstream aircraft to fly between her large Los Angeles home and her large Martha's Vineyard home is some ten times less efficient than using a standard Boeing 737.[7] In an interview with The Guardian in November of 2006, Ms. David acknowledged that owning two homes on opposite sides of the country and flying in a private jet several times per year is at odds with her message to others. In the interview she notes "Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year, and I feel horribly guilty about it. I probably shouldn't do it. But the truth is, I'm not perfect. This is not about perfection. I don't expect anybody else to be perfect either. That's what hurts the environmental movement holding people to a standard they cannot meet. That just pushes people away.

Practice what you preach?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Wait, if a person associated with a given ideology doesn't practice what they preach, it means the whole ideology is a deception and trivial and debased?

So Mark Foley does mean that the Christian right is full of shit? I gotta say, this is awesome news, because it's really, really easy to find members of the Christian right that like to fuck and gamble and cheat and rob, so I guess we can stop pretending that Christianity, or the right, or the Republican party are anything but interlocking systems of overripe bullshit.

Thanks, Nick, for clearing this up.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Wait, if a person associated with a given ideology doesn't practice what they preach, it means the whole ideology is a deception and trivial and debased?

So Mark Foley does mean that the Christian right is full of shit? I gotta say, this is awesome news, because it's really, really easy to find members of the Christian right that like to fuck and gamble and cheat and rob, so I guess we can stop pretending that Christianity, or the right, or the Republican party are anything but interlocking systems of overripe bullshit.

Thanks, Nick, for clearing this up.

See Adda, here is the problem with your little premise.

I can suppose you are entirely right. Those who are entirely full of shit, like Mark Foley, who like to fuck, gamble, cheat and rob are entirely in the wrong.

The problem though is anyone who really follows the teachings of Christianity, even if those teachings are the ravings of nutjobs who smell worse than overripe bullshit believe and have faith that an unknowable, unprovable God is going to grant them a reprieve from all their wrongs and give them a good afterlife.

From my perspective, even if they are deluded, self-interested assholes this makes sense. They can play today, not even have to pay tomorrow and via grace get a magic get out of hell free card that acts as fire insurance to an afterlife that no one can even prove.

Those actions are entirely consistent for self-interested, self-righteous assholes.

Now the problem with your reasoning related to these environmental self-righteous assholes is that instead of lying about the afterlife and God, something we can't prove, their actions relate to the planet and the present. Two items that are definitely provable. Likewise if a Mark Foley wants to declare that homosexuals are going to hell while letting some guy rub him down and give him butt sex, he can take it up with God in the afterlife. If Laurie David wants to be a hypocritical bitch, she has to take it up with the factors that effects which happens to be the planet, and me.

Also the actions of these self-righteous assholes are not consistent and do not make sense. There is no magic get off the planet, or save the planet for free cards that work in some unknown, unprovable afterlife. By their reasoning, they die, we die, the planet dies and their actions, which have not changed, contribute not to some unknown and unprovable afterlife, but to the known and very proven present planet.

Wait, if a person associated with a given ideology doesn't practice what they preach, it means the whole ideology is a deception and trivial and debased?

So Mark Foley does mean that the Christian right is full of shit? I gotta say, this is awesome news, because it's really, really easy to find members of the Christian right that like to fuck and gamble and cheat and rob, so I guess we can stop pretending that Christianity, or the right, or the Republican party are anything but interlocking systems of overripe bullshit.

Thanks, Nick, for clearing this up.

Environmentalism is not bad because it has within it hypocrites like Gore and Laurie David. It is bad in its current evolution because it is the new home for state-run central planning and massive control over people's lives... aka Socialism. Saving the planet for our kids is a great thing we can all get behind. It went far beyond that stage about the time that Greenpeace launched the Rainbow Warrior. Today's environmental movement, while having great exterior goals, is full of a bunch of leftists who want full control over every aspect of our lives. Very sad, because I want a clean, livable world. Too bad that it comes with far left wing strings attached.

These folks want to tell me what to drive. What kind of light bulbs to use. How much toilet paper is enough. That my species, in the last 75 years, is solely responsible for the constant, millennial ebb and flow of global temperature. How capitalist America destroys the world, while at the same time ignoring that the free market has delivered the most advanced methods of cleaning up humanity's mess. How I should feel constantly guilty because of X, Y, or Z. That I should live with 1 GPF toilets with no personal choice. How capitalism and corporations are the most evil things on the planet, regardless of how humanity has advanced because of both. Want to save the whales? Great. Save the trees? Wonderful. But I draw the line when some burned-out 60s throwback leftist stands in a city council meeting and tells me that my toilet choice means that I hate my children and their future world.

This is the same ideology that brought you Eastern Europe and Chernobyl... those great vacation destinations of pristine environmental enjoyment.

Environmentalism is not bad because it has within it hypocrites like Gore and Laurie David. It is bad in its current evolution because it is the new home for state-run central planning and massive control over people's lives... aka Socialism. Saving the planet for our kids is a great thing we can all get behind. It went far beyond that stage about the time that Greenpeace launched the Rainbow Warrior. Today's environmental movement, while having great exterior goals, is full of a bunch of leftists who want full control over every aspect of our lives. Very sad, because I want a clean, livable world. Too bad that it comes with far left wing strings attached.

These folks want to tell me what to drive. What kind of light bulbs to use. How much toilet paper is enough. That my species, in the last 75 years, is solely responsible for the constant, millennial ebb and flow of global temperature. How capitalist America destroys the world, while at the same time ignoring that the free market has delivered the most advanced methods of cleaning up humanity's mess. How I should feel constantly guilty because of X, Y, or Z. That I should live with 1 GPF toilets with no personal choice. How capitalism and corporations are the most evil things on the planet, regardless of how humanity has advanced because of both. Want to save the whales? Great. Save the trees? Wonderful. But I draw the line when some burned-out 60s throwback leftist stands in a city council meeting and tells me that my toilet choice means that I hate my children and their future world.

This is the same ideology that brought you Eastern Europe and Chernobyl... those great vacation destinations of pristine environmental enjoyment.

If what all the GW scientists say is true, and with future populations of ~9-12B people, with severely limited water resources, and significantly higher global per capita CO2 emissions, what future do you think this poses for humanity?

Forced global socialism!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

If what all the GW scientists say is true, and with future populations of ~9-12B people, with severely limited water resources, and significantly higher global per capita CO2 emissions, what future do you think this poses for humanity?

Forced global socialism!

I'd say, per the article, that CO2 is no problem. It's overpopulation and limited resources (water, arable land, Cheney's petrol) that we have to worry about...

I'd say, per the article, that CO2 is no problem. It's overpopulation and limited resources (water, arable land, Cheney's petrol) that we have to worry about...

Must go to work now, but briefly, if what the GW scientists say is true, that large increases in atmospheric CO2 leads to increased GW, our annual snow pack and annual mountain glacial runoffs will decrease tremendously.

Current estimates are that ~2B people currently depend on these sources for their fresh water needs.

Double the global population, and half the sources of fresh water, doesn't sound like a formula for a free society to me.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Must go to work now, but briefly, if what the GW scientists say is true, that large increases in atmospheric CO2 leads to increased GW, our annual snow pack and annual mountain glacial runoffs will decrease tremendously.

Current estimates are that ~2B people currently depend on these sources for their fresh water needs.

Double the global population, and half the sources of fresh water, doesn't sound like a formula for a free society to me.

Sounds more like a good candidate for Martial Law, IMHO. Global societal breakdown, Katrina style. The smartest people in the world are learning to prepare for life without just-in-time trucking and affordable gas.

Environmentalism is not bad because it has within it hypocrites like Gore and Laurie David. It is bad in its current evolution because it is the new home for state-run central planning and massive control over people's lives... aka Socialism. Saving the planet for our kids is a great thing we can all get behind. It went far beyond that stage about the time that Greenpeace launched the Rainbow Warrior. Today's environmental movement, while having great exterior goals, is full of a bunch of leftists who want full control over every aspect of our lives. Very sad, because I want a clean, livable world. Too bad that it comes with far left wing strings attached.

So threads like this have no point?

Quote:

These folks want to tell me what to drive. What kind of light bulbs to use. How much toilet paper is enough. That my species, in the last 75 years, is solely responsible for the constant, millennial ebb and flow of global temperature. How capitalist America destroys the world, while at the same time ignoring that the free market has delivered the most advanced methods of cleaning up humanity's mess. How I should feel constantly guilty because of X, Y, or Z. That I should live with 1 GPF toilets with no personal choice. How capitalism and corporations are the most evil things on the planet, regardless of how humanity has advanced because of both. Want to save the whales? Great. Save the trees? Wonderful. But I draw the line when some burned-out 60s throwback leftist stands in a city council meeting and tells me that my toilet choice means that I hate my children and their future world.

I think this is the crux of the matter. For global warming denialists it always seems to come back to the horror of having hippies tell them what to do. That a vision of some fatuous tree hugging nature boy dictating what kind of toilet paper you can buy is enough to send ya'll running into the arms of absolute bought and paid for industry disinformation bullshit and elaborate theories about how the scientists are all in together with the hippies and the one-worlders and some obscure sort of profiteer that makes the actual, overt profiteers look like idealists.

If it wasn't for the cultural associations of anything environmental, I don't think most of the people on these boards would be entertaining the transparently contrived "controversy" and making fools of themselves by professing to find the industry propaganda "compelling" and "persuasive".

But fear of hippies runs deep and long, apparently, as well as the fantasy that the people arguing for a response to global warming are doing so out of antipathy towards capitalism or business or the modern age or whatever insane scenario is used to rationalize all this pig-headed nonsense.

Quote:

This is the same ideology that brought you Eastern Europe and Chernobyl... those great vacation destinations of pristine environmental enjoyment.

Yeah, insane like that.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

So perhaps you are referring to this part of Alexander Cockburn op-ed piece?

Quote:

Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.

And now for some ACTUAL data in graphical format, sorry several images are in order;

And finally three carbon global emission plots are in order;

So basically AC doesn't understand the data, for some reason AC expects an IMMEDIATE change in atmospheric CO2 as human's change their CO2 emissions.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Basically, the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans takes many years to adjust to cumulative net changes in CO2 emissions, a rather small dip over a few years doesn't appear in the lower frequency of ice core CO2 measurements. Also, look at the small dip in CO2 emissions that occurred around 1980, and then look at the high resolution CO2 measurements from HI, I don't see a dip in the CO2 measurements, do you?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Environmentalism is not bad because it has within it hypocrites like Gore and Laurie David. It is bad in its current evolution because it is the new home for state-run central planning and massive control over people's lives... aka Socialism. Saving the planet for our kids is a great thing we can all get behind. It went far beyond that stage about the time that Greenpeace launched the Rainbow Warrior. Today's environmental movement, while having great exterior goals, is full of a bunch of leftists who want full control over every aspect of our lives. Very sad, because I want a clean, livable world. Too bad that it comes with far left wing strings attached.

Sure. We can all live happily ever after without making sacrifices. Do you have energy-efficient light bulbs?
(I do. I turned my water heater down, I plan on having solar panels in my house in a few years, and my next car will be a hybrid. I turn lights off everywhere I go, I wear a jacket instead of cranking my heat up in the winter, etc.)

I am all for market-based approaches that don't make you switch from incandescent bulbs...there will simply be tax incentives for using renewable energy, having a hybrid, using energy-efficient products, etc. Can you argue against that? Not really, unless you're either selfish and/or uninformed.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox